Maneater

This is one the descent Sci Fi original i have see.

The plot: The hunter becomes the hunted when the forested shadows of the Appalachian Trail are stalked by a wild animal out of its element, hungry and born to ravage. After Sheriff Grady finds a dismembered body in the area, he quickly discovers a print near the scene that identifies the predator as a Bengal tiger. Six hundred pounds, twelve feet from nose to tail, it's one of the most powerful cats on Earth. Now it's loose -- and there's no man on the Appalachian Trail with the skill, or the courage, to take it down.

As i am huge fan of Killer Animals movies, There is no surprise that i liked this movie. What i liked about this movies was fact that it had boy who had Connection with Killer Tiger , Was such Great Idea and other Great idea was the boy Also had a religious nut of a mother keeps him out of school and has him memorize Bible chapters all day in their trailer while she's at work. When he tells her about the tiger, she dismisses it as an imaginative lie. Believing that the only useful information is that found in the Good Book, she avoids television and is thus completely unaware of the local attacks. Roy is also unaware, and when he discovers that the police are hunting it, he believes it is his responsibility to save the tiger and protect it from harm.

They use an actual real tiger so there were no CGI in this movie at all.

There are some good death scene in here more Bloody then Gory.

The Biggest problem i had with this movie was the ending, i hated as the ending felt to rushed, it kinda of ruined the whole movie for me.

If you liked the movie Prey (2007) should give this a watch. i rate this movie a 5/10

Nothing to say about this film actually... It is boring, slow, predictable and so on and so on with negativity. The story is very lame, a tiger escapes his cage, due to road accident and he "befriended" with a little loser kid with imaginary friends... whose mother is a religious fanatic, I don't find this interesting. The killings in the film... well... well done! As expected, because filmmakers wanted to show that only. But fat sheriff's (Gary Busey) question "How come that tiger take out two heavily armed men?" Really! How?!?! How the f*ck he did that!??!?! The only thing I like about this film is Gary Busey, I really like that guy... even here, as a slow, monotone, gruff voiced sheriff, who looks like he don't give a flying f**k about his little town. And of course, I love tigers and that's because I gave it 4 out of 10. However... don't watch it, or better watch it... just to put you out of your insomnia.

MANEATER concerns a small town with a big cat problem when a truck crashes, unleashing a Bengal tiger to hunt for local prey. Several human snacks later, the sheriff (Gary Busey) is on the case.

Alas, the killer kitty isn't so easy to catch. Many lives are lost, including an entire national guard unit!

While there are a few bloody extremities on display, the actual violence is mostly offscreen. There's no real profanity or nudity either. Busey is quite good in his role, and the low-budget CGI is kept to a blessed minimum...

I knew about this movie existing, because I had stumbled upon movies in the 'Maneater Series' before, I just never had the opportunity to sit down and watch this 2007 movie titled "Maneater" before now in 2024.

The storyline was pretty straightforward, and something that would would expect from a TV movie. So writer Philip Morton didn't exactly fail to deliver here. However, nor did he deliver anything outstanding or spectacular for director Gary Yates to bring to life on the screen. There are two storylines running in the movie, the one with the sheriff trying to protect the town against a wild tiger near the town, and the story of a strange wonder kid who turned into a 'Tiger Whisperer'. The latter felt so out of place with the tone of the movie.

"Maneater" wasn't exactly a movie that was crammed with big names and familiar faces. Of the entire cast ensemble, I was actually only familiar with Gary Busey. And you know what you get with that guy, so enough said. Actually, I do enjoy watching new faces and unfamiliar talents on the screen when I watch movies, so "Maneater" was not losing any points on that account.

There is a fair amount of people being mauled and killed by the tiger, except we don't get to see it. We always get to see what is left behind after the attack. It worked okay, but I mean it would have been nice to have had some exciting and thrilling scenes where we see a tiger attacking people. But with "Maneater" being a TV movie, then of course that was just two things that didn't go hand-in-hand.

It should be noted, however, that the prosthetics and props of the mauled body parts were actually fairly good and came off as being somewhat passable for realistic. And that, at least, counted for something when we were deprived of the scenes where the tiger was mauling its prey.

My rating of "Maneater" lands on a generous three out of ten stars.

Maneater is the kind of movie that seems to start with the right idea but soon slinks away in reverse, as if apologizing for existing. There's a loose tiger, yes, but it acts with the timidity of an insecure extra. Instead of spectacle, what unfolds is a long and fruitless wait-like a circus tent set up, but the lion never shows. The plot even rehearses a greatest hits of disaster cinema: a small town, a local festival, sensationalist journalists, a mysterious hunter, a rigid sheriff, and a weird kid with a spiritual connection to the beast. But it all feels like window dressing-a suspense of "almost," an action of "maybe," a tension of "later." And when that "later" finally arrives, we're already emotionally checked out.

The tiger, which should be the star, is filmed like a state secret. The camera hides in leaves, branches, cowardly POV shots-the predator is more heard than seen, more rumor than presence. And while this spares the film from disastrous CGI, it only reinforces its narrative cowardice. The creature attacks as if following a serial killer's manual-ripping limbs, scattering body parts-but without the heat of savagery. Everything feels procedural, almost administrative. There are pathetic attempts to instill fear, like the scene where a journalist tries to lure the beast with bait-an unlicensed Jaws-cage-sequence knockoff. But all we get is a hard cut to an already bloodied scene. No attack, no climax, just silence and shocked extras.

Sheriff Grady Barnes, played by Gary Busey (still nursing a hangover from his more notable roles), carries the plot with the fixed gaze of someone clearly cast in a different movie. The town he tries to protect has no charm, identity, or emotional geography-it's just backdrop, generic forest with slapped-on signs. As for the hunter, James Graham, he sports a Poirot-worthy mustache but can't even solve a crossword, let alone the mystery of the beast. And the boy, Roy-who seems to be rehearsing some Carrie-esque suburban mystique-never evolves beyond a sketch. In theory, he embodies the sheriff's dead son; in practice, he's just another weak link between two characters who never share real emotional weight.

In the end, the beast does attack-but only on the clock. The final minutes unfold in a roadside convenience store, with explosions, gasoline, and a whole lot of noise for very little impact. Maneater tries to be the kind of movie that survives on concept alone: "What if Jaws, but with a tiger?" But it forgets that a good concept is nothing without execution that bites. There are no scares, no bold choices, not even glorious mistakes. The film is afraid of its own roar. If there's any consolation, it might be in the cinematography-which, surprise, has color. The forest is green, the lighting decent, the festival poor but quaint. But that's not enough. I'd take a festival of cheesy CGI and digital blood with some ambition over this domesticated danger. It's a movie that behaves like a pedigree-less beast, caged in the ditch of near-cinema.